@Part[Introduction, Root "thesis.lis"]

@chapter[Introduction]

@section[Introduction and fundamental assertions]
@label[assertions]

The literature tends to describe the introduction of technology into
organizations in one of two ways: either technology is treated as a
single variable that causes changes in human behavior, or else
technology is viewed as the creation of people in organizations.  A
more useful view recognizes that technology plays both roles in
organizations, and that they interact.

In many organizations, individuals within the organization are
responsible for creating software tools to be used by others.  Yet
even in organizations that don't have programmers, users change the
technology.  They innovate and use it in ways not anticipated by the
creators of the software.  For example, the introduction of electronic
mail into organizations can fundamentally change a corporations
internal communication networks (citation).  Technology that provides
different levels of flexibility, such as spreadsheets and hypercard,
lower the threshold of "programming" the system for individual users.
@comment[Telephone operator anecdote]

Define co-adaptive system.  Define an adaptive system first -- example
of a neural net and "database-driven software" and Muse.  Then
explain co-adaptive systems with respect to interconnected groups of
individuals and collections of software.

@section[Research Issues]
@label[issues]

Cannot just do experimental Psychology -- need to rethink what 
appropropriate controls are.  (CHI'89 panel on this, plus references.)

Given two existing theoretical approaches: Why is it bad to restrict
one's view to one or the other?  We clearly cannot study the world in
all of its complexity -- what good is a map of the world with a scale
of 1:1?  However, we must be careful in making certain reductions that
we don't "control" the elements that are most interesting.  We can
study how people are affected by the technologies we use, but we miss
a great deal if we don't also study how they change and adapt the
technology as well.  The interaction effect may well be stronger that
the sum of the separate effects.  (Note: here's the critique of Sproul
and Keisler: study of an email system in transition -- claims about
final use are suspect.)

Provide examples in which a limited view will result in incorrect 
predictions:  Lens example.  
May result in inadequate or wrong prescriptions, misleading or
incorrect predictions, diagnoses, design implications, processes.]

@section[Plan of this dissertation]
@label[plan]

My thesis is that electronic communication within an organization
acts as a "co-adaptive system" in which the users both adapt to
and modify the software they use, in a dynamic interaction over time.
This view of software systems has important implications both 
in understanding the influence of technology on organizations
and in the process of designing and developing successful software.

The purpose of this dissertation is to explore co-adaptivity as a
theoretical framework, using electronic communication within a
distributed computing environment. 

I am particularly interested in electronic communication because it
both reflects the complexities of the organizations in which it is
used and because users have a variety of options which permits them
highly customized patterns of use among individuals within the same
organization.


In this dissertation, I review the literature in the following
fields: electronic communication, user innnovation, user interface
design, software development process, adaptive systems, and ...

Define co-adaptive system.  Define an adaptive system first -- example
of a neural net and "database-driven software" and Muse.  Then
describe co-evolution -- example of daisy world.  Then explain what a
co-adaptive system is with respect to interconnected groups of
individuals and collections of software.

The goals of this work are:
@begin[enumerate]
develop a theoretical framework to describe and understand co-adaptive systems
@begin[enumerate]
define co-adaptive

identify the characteristics -- what are the qualities of 
systems of people and software that are likely 
to make them co-adaptive?

describe how they might change over time

propose a process of inquiry to examine them

what would it take to predict them?
@end[enumerate]

explore electronic communication from the standpoint of co-adaptivity
@begin[enumerate]
describe what it would look like

present data from email studies

examine user innovation examples

describe software design

present data about changes wrought
@end[enumerate]

Suggest lines of further research

Suggest a new view of software development process

Legitimize a style of field study

Integrate research techniques and feedback into the system.
@end[enumerate]

@b[What led to the observation about co-adaptivity?]

Knew that users were greatly affected by the underlying
assumptions/model of the software they use.  (Programming languages,
authoring systems.)  Got interested in how users innovate.  Put them
all together. 	Explains why sw dev proces is inadequate, supports UI 
process but pushes beyond.  Particularly interested in 
electronic communication -- one of the reasons why it 
is so powerful as a co-adaptive system is that use changes
the use and the change is more rapid than with off-line 
systems -- (talk to Joanne Yates re: history examples)
Should change the way we think about delivering information 
to people and the way we provide communication channels.

@b[Athena solved a number of very hard user interface issues and 
left the easy ones]

Multi-tasking over a network, ability to attach file
systems/environments (teleport me there or bring there to me), ability
to share, method of handling breakdowns, privacy/security issues.

@b[What's the role of explicitly providing feedback to users? (Zuboff)]

Can help them bring their assumptions about their behavior
better into line with their actual behavior and allow them 
to modify their strategies over time

@b[Individual differences]

People need different aspects of the same software. (what percent 
of all possible unix commands are actually used?)  an adaptive 
system will evolve 

@b[Co-adaptive systems help to solve a problem of adaptive systems:]

(cite in Hoppe CHI '88: who says that B [diagnosis of the user's
current needs based on what s/he is actually doing] is hard: This
gives us a chance to let people do what they're good at and computers
do what they're good at -- people see the feedback and react
accordingly.  Remember though that the form of the feedback will
affect the way that users perceive their behavior.

What's the relationship between all this and "situated action"?  The 
role that operating in the context of one's actual job plays.  See
Whiteside (CHI'89 panel p. 267), Suchman.

How about bringing in Deborah's observations with conversation -- how 
do the different requirements of converstational patterns 
manifest themselves and how do the different kinds of tools
support or inhibit the successful styule of converstaion.  Relate to 
CHI'89 Cohen and Sullivan article:  Combine pointing and natural 
language -- better than either alone.

@b[future research] New forms of research -- re-examine the nature of
control	design implications -- in the products, in the process.
Bring in CHI'89 panel.

Two areas to examine: how users adapt to the system and how they make
the system adapt to them.  Eric is interested in the latter.  Many
user interface folks are interested in the former.  I am interested in
the dynamic interaction between the two.

@b[Design implications]: requires a change in fundamental assumptions
about the software development process and subsequent introduction 
of the technology into organizations.  Expect that the same technology 
will look different in different organizations and will change over 
time.  How does a manufacturer of a system deal with this?

propose research implications -- this requires new forms of research 
strategies.  What should they be?



